Ryzen vs ryzen

[misterman]

what is the diffence between 1600 1600x is it just a stock overclock

[Imbellis]

3 minutes ago, misterman said:

what is the diffence between 1600 1600x is it just a stock overclock

The 1600x comes with a base overclock to 3.6 ghz compared to the 1600's 3.2. It is basically buying yourself a bit higher into the silicon lottery.

However, the 1600x doesn't come with a cooler included like the 1600 does.

[Misanthrope]

Short answer, yes.

 

Long answer, the 1600x is guaranteed far better speeds by default so there's fairly good odds than the 1600x will be consistently better at reaching 4.0ghz whereas the 1600 will again, more often than not, require far more voltage to get there if it's even capable (some chips will never get to stable 4.0 and will need to settle for 3.8 or 3.9)

 

Oh and small aside: 1600 comes with the stock wraith cooler and the 1600x has no cooler. Most stock coolers from the past are pretty worthless but this one is actually quite decent: its certainly enough to overclock the 1600 to 3.6 on all cores effectively matching the 1600x out of the box performance. 

[just_dave]

They are the same but 1600X gets better silicon. I'd get the 1600X definitely

[Princess Luna]

To be honest I put Ryzen 5 1600 > Ryzen 5 1600x simply because it is identical after OC'ing and it is cheaper with a free decent stock cooler.

[just_dave]

1 minute ago, Princess Cadence said:

To be honest I put Ryzen 5 1600 > Ryzen 5 1600x simply because it is identical after OC'ing and it is cheaper with a free decent stock cooler.

1600X can usually do 4.1 and has better IMC

[faziten]

Depends on how much you want those "potential" extra 200Mhz the 1600x could give if all planets align with the sun. 

i'd go 1600 or 1700. Nothing in between. 

[Princess Luna]

Just now, dave_k said:

1600X can usually do 4.1 and has better IMC

0,1ghz is a great definition of meaningless, IMC? for real? out of every one in here I'd expect you being well knowledge about Ryzen would be a certain one to show how pointless the 1600x is over the 1600, if one can afford the 1600x should stretch to a 1700 already even if single thread wise it's the same.

[Misanthrope]

As an aside, remember than the 1600x and 1700x are useful for scenarios where overclocking isn't allowed which is usually the case on corporate machines. Also we might be dealing with user preference to just spend a bit extra and not worry about overclocking.

 

But outside of that 1600 is a far better deal cheaper and with a good enough cooler.

[johndms]

It comes down to the question of how much value you place on 300MHz. You can overclock a 1600 to 3.8 on stock cooler, or the 1600x to 4.1 (maybe 4.2) but you'd still need to buy a cooler. $30USD difference MSRP plus the cost of a cooler for the 1600x.

[just_dave]

2 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

0,1ghz is a great definition of meaningless, IMC? for real? out of every one in here I'd expect you being well knowledge about Ryzen would be a certain one to show how pointless the 1600x is over the 1600, if one can afford the 1600x should stretch to a 1700 already even if single thread wise it's the same.

It is the better binned version, these usually get slightly better IMC silicon, thats what i mean.

[Princess Luna]

2 minutes ago, dave_k said:

It is the better binned version, these usually get slightly better IMC silicon, thats what i mean.

I gave up trying to explain it through this route about the r7 1800x at home already

 

Don't really feel the x is worth in any of the ryzen CPUs... either ways @Misanthrope's last reply could pretty much be marked as solved, his point basically covers it all.